Parish president rebuts ethics charges

Thursday

Mar 7, 2013 at 10:02 PMMar 8, 2013 at 10:50 AM

BATON ROUGE — Lafourche Parish President Charlotte Randolph argued Thursday that good intentions led to the state ethics charges pending against her for renting her Grand Isle camp to BP after the 2010 Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill.

Xerxes WilsonStaff Writer

BATON ROUGE — Lafourche Parish President Charlotte Randolph argued Thursday that good intentions led to the state ethics charges pending against her for renting her Grand Isle camp to BP after the 2010 Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill. At a state ethics hearing, Randolph and her husband, George, passionately defended their motives.“We did what we thought was right,” George Randolph said.A three-person panel will decide whether the transaction was a violation of state ethics law after hearing arguments from the Randolphs and representatives for the state Ethics Board. If the panel finds Randolph violated state law, it will determine a penalty. As oil began gushing from the Macondo well in April 2010, an army of workers hired by BP to respond to the spill filled local hotels and rental properties. Charlotte Randolph said the couple decided to lease the property after “conversations with friends and other officials” about “similar arrangements they had with BP.”The couple entered into an agreement with BP to be paid $100 per night for each person using the property. They were paid about $50,000 altogether for the rental.The two initially rejected BP’s offer because they didn’t want strangers living in their camp, George Randolph said.Charlotte Randolph said she terminated the agreement with BP after seeing an ethics opinion in October about a potential conflict of interest. Tracy Barker, staff attorney for the Ethics Administration, argued the arrangement violates state ethics law dictating the personal business of public servants. The law says a public servant such as Charlotte Randolph cannot be paid by an entity that has or is seeking a contractual business with the government. Shortly after the spill, the Lafourche Parish Council approved an agreement in which BP would pay the parish $1 million to respond to the spill. George Randolph argued that BP was making more of a “donation” to the parish. Charlotte Randolph noted she eventually reported the violation. “Unfortunately, the self-reporting in and of itself does not remove that there is a violation,” Barker said.Barker also said the agreement between the parish and BP was a contract because it was approved by the Parish Council with language that provided BP some oversight on how the money was to be spent. State ethics laws are framed to prevent public servants from being improperly influenced through their private business. For example, a public servant cannot be paid for something personally by someone seeking a contract for a parish project. The disconnect between what transpired in 2010 and the law’s intent, Charlotte Randolph argued, is that BP wasn’t actively seeking to give money to the parish. The disaster, not her personal dealings, led to the parish entering a contact with BP, she insisted. She also argued her authority as parish president, even if it was wielded in return for rent money, would not have changed BP’s predicament.“I cannot reduce their fine. I cannot affect legal proceedings,” she said, noting hundreds of other camp owners took part in similar rent agreements. “Any effort on my part to deny that this happened, if that was BP’s intent, would be ludicrous.”Barker argued the Randolphs’ intent in renting the camp is ultimately irrelevant. “We don’t have to show or prove that there was influence on BP because of this arrangement,” Barker argued. “The statute is broad, but it is very clear. She is prohibited from providing services, compensated services, to BP while BP has this relationship with her agency.” Charlotte Randolph also argued that by the strictest interpretation of the law, she could not do business with anybody the parish has a contract with. That includes hundreds of residents who have simple drainage right-of-way agreements with the parish.“I am concerned that the restrictions on this are so onerous that our hands are tied in any personal dealings,” she said. The law is intentionally broad to not only prevent personal business influencing public business but also to prevent the appearance of such an impropriety, Barker said. “The public should not have to question her motive,” she added.Charlotte Randolph said the allegations make it sound as if she is being accused of taking a bribe. “That cuts to my heart because it is not, was not, in any way intended to do that,” she said.Barker added the hearing and charges are not intended to question her motives. “We are not alleging that there were any improper motives. I think her intentions were good. This was a serious natural disaster, and I think what she wanted to do was help,” Barker said. “But the way she was helping is prohibited by the code of ethics.”Ethics Board representatives argued the law stipulates the Randolphs should at least have to return the rent money and could receive a 50 percent penalty if the panel rules against them. There is no certain time line for the panel’s decision, though Ethics Board representatives said similar decisions are typically rendered within two weeks.

Never miss a story

Choose the plan that's right for you.
Digital access or digital and print delivery.